MP expenses map

[Mabs]

some might have seen this already, someone put it on our forums, so copy/paste ftw !

MPs' expenses | MSN News UK

 

[Scouse]

Cool

I wish I could claim for a second home when I'm working in London, rather than having to pay for hotels out of my hard-earned...

...to be fair, right now I wish I could be paying for hotels out of some hard-earned :|

 

[DaGaffer]

I note with interest that Scotland seems to have more than its fair share of expensive bastards.

 

[JingleBells]

I note with interest that Scotland seems to have more than its fair share of expensive bastards.

How much of that is travel though, Charles Kennedy for instance claimed £33k in travelling to London.

 

[rynnor]

I note with interest that Scotland seems to have more than its fair share of expensive bastards.

Yeah - initially I thought that was down to travelling costs and indeed those are higher but on the other hand their staff costs should be a lot lower given the scarcity of jobs?

The real giveaway is that the most northerly MP's costs are a lot lower than some of those right next door - looks dead suspicious - by way of comparison look how cheap the Northern Ireland ones are despite high travel costs?

How can Charles Kennedy in the west of scotland spend about 30K more on staff costs than an MP in surrey?

 

[ECA]

All the MPs near me have claimed between 150-175k over their terms.

fuckers.

 

[DaGaffer]

How much of that is travel though, Charles Kennedy for instance claimed £33k in travelling to London.

Well since most of them don't need to come to Westminster anymore as their main place of business is Holyrood, less than you might think. And how much is an Easyjet flight to Stanstead anyway?

If you assume Charles Kennedy works a typical 47 week year (he doesn't, its less), and that during the period of these expenses he was an ordinary backbench MP (which he was), then that's £140 a day just on travel. The hardest working sales rep in the country doesn't spend that much on travel. Of course its because he also has to fly his assistants and secretaries (and in his case, mobile off licence) around with him. Utter bollocks.

*edit* I've been trying to use the public whip website to find his attendance record but I seem to have broken the site...

 

[rynnor]

MP for Kettering looks about the cheapest - 47K - pretty good.

 

[tris-]

Why are travel costs so high within the country?

Isnt Megabus like 50p from Scotland to Cornwall?

 

[adams901]

heh, all the noise David Cameron is making abour expenses.

Constituency: Witney
MP: Cameron, Rt Hon David
Party: CON
Expenses
Second Home: £19,626
London Supplement: £0
Office: £7,588
Staffing: £103,630
Stationery: £2,594
IT Provision: £1,294
Staff Cover: £5,412
Communication: £2,200
Travel: £2,086

Total Expenses: £148,829

 

[Chilly]

How can Charles Kennedy in the west of scotland spend about 30K more on staff costs than an MP in surrey?

Cos hes a senior party member and holds positions within government other than being an MP?

 

[MYstIC G]

How much of that is travel though, Charles Kennedy for instance claimed £33k in travelling to London.

Guess he takes the train then.

 

[rynnor]

Cos hes a senior party member and holds positions within government other than being an MP?

Hes not in Government - hes a Lib Dem - I suspect the real answer is that hes using an allowance meant for his constituency expenses for Party expenses which is a breach of the rules.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

heh, all the noise David Cameron is making abour expenses.

Constituency: Witney
MP: Cameron, Rt Hon David
Party: CON
Expenses
Second Home: £19,626
London Supplement: £0
Office: £7,588
Staffing: £103,630
Stationery: £2,594
IT Provision: £1,294
Staff Cover: £5,412
Communication: £2,200
Travel: £2,086

Total Expenses: £148,829

That's pretty unfair. He's the leader of a major political party: he's going to have a LOT of genuine expenses. It's the unfair expenses that are the problem: IIRC he's already paid back gardening expenses, one of the few non 'legitimate' expenses he claimed.

 

[rynnor]

That's pretty unfair. He's the leader of a major political party: he's going to have a LOT of genuine expenses. It's the unfair expenses that are the problem: IIRC he's already paid back gardening expenses, one of the few non 'legitimate' expenses he claimed.

These expenses are for their constituency work only - any work on behalf of his party should be paid for by the party.

 

[DaGaffer]

Cos hes a senior party member and holds positions within government other than being an MP?

Our survey says: Uh-uh.
Its 2007-8 figures. He'd retired to the backbenches by then.

 

[adams901]

I thought one of the big issues was tax payers paying the mortgage for MPs 2nd homes?

He is claiming 19k for that.

 

[Scouse]

Yep, 19k for a second home. Or he could just stay a few days a week in a hotel like the rest of us?

 

[Jupitus]

IIRC he's already paid back gardening expenses, one of the few non 'legitimate' expenses he claimed.

Oooooooohhhhhh sorry!

Pardon me. If they give the money back after comitting fraud then it's ok!

I forgot that bit, my bad!

 

[rynnor]

Oooooooohhhhhh sorry!

Pardon me. If they give the money back after comitting fraud then it's ok!

I forgot that bit, my bad!

Yes - its wonderfull how the weakest defence like 'I'm not very good at accounting' is suddenly enough to avoid fraud charges if your an MP

That defense is absolutely no defence back in the real world.

 

[Chilly]

I thought one of the big issues was tax payers paying the mortgage for MPs 2nd homes?

He is claiming 19k for that.

I dont see a problem with that at all. However, I think that the property should be returned to the public ownership once the MP vacates it if it was bougth specifically as a london second home. These guys do hard jobs on our behalf, I fully support providing them with decent conditions to do it in. What I dont like is all the shitty cases of outright fraud that have been going on abusing the system.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Oooooooohhhhhh sorry!

Pardon me. If they give the money back after comitting fraud then it's ok!

I forgot that bit, my bad!

It's pretty hard to discuss this sensibly when people start witchhunting like some in this thread have, people really not getting to grips with reality and joining the media in the whole "omg we've been scammed" story for the last 2 weeks.

But why bother taking a sensible approach when we can simply label them all in the bad pot and spit at them?

 

[GReaper]

But why bother taking a sensible approach when we can simply label them all in the bad pot and spit at them?

Because even if there are MPs who weren't abusing it, the expenses rules set were far too ridiculous in the first place.

 

[Mabs]

It's pretty hard to discuss this sensibly when people start witchhunting like some in this thread have, people really not getting to grips with reality and joining the media in the whole "omg we've been scammed" story for the last 2 weeks.

But why bother taking a sensible approach when we can simply label them all in the bad pot and spit at them?

maybe
its because they are meant to be national leaders? who work hard to deserve respect and the authority they are entrusted with, to improve the country ?

not to line their own pockets by grey areas laws .

its a modern government, not a private club for embezzelers